kevinkin

Thinking out loud .. should some cyber attacks be considered using WMD given they can potentially bring down networks critical to a nation's economy e.g. banking, electrical, communications. Non-state actors have to keep a lot of people up at night. I hope so. What should be the response if Iran hosts a bunch of code cutters that bring down Atlanta and the surrounding area? I know it's a long shot, but still.

The developers took a short but hard hit after the sinking of the Moskva. But a tongue in cheek explanation got to the heart of the matter: "Command, by default (ie. stock DB values) represents Russian systems (and all other systems) as they are meant to be used, by trained crews employing them according to their design doctrine. Not long ago a US general remarked that "Russian hardware works pretty well..... when used by Ukrainians"." I wonder if there weren't unknown soft factors, would there be any wars fought? It would all come down to math and physics and the ability to innovate and then outproduce your enemy. If DeepMind were allowed to tackle a wargame, which one? I would start relatively simple but with FOW.

Well maybe we can look at the transfers as symbolic to the public while we know that NATO is readying for the day when larger numbers are needed to have a meaningful effect on operations. I guess the process forced Europe to think things through. Why this didn't take place long ago is another question.

Maybe you missed this yesterday like I did: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/this-is-what-m1-abrams-tanks-will-bring-to-the-fight-in-ukraine Goes into M1 logistics mostly. But warns that NATO's MBT shipments are for now symbolic. (We sort of know that.) But this is interesting: perhaps NATO will put new AFVs through trials to select the best combinations for the combat in Ukraine .g. establish new TOEs for new mech formations. Only then will operationally significant numbers ship. And by that time, training will become faster as Ukraine will have dedicated facilities and troops for that. Again, "time" keeps coming up.

I know you know what they are. Just a way to highlight them vs open ground. That's all. Here is some timely analysis today on the same subject: https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-pre-emptive-strike-plan-091615646.html No one can figure out if RA positions are serving to secure a base for offensives or just to hold current ground. The most suitable sectors for UA attack will be the weakest ones that can be held long term regardless of where they are. But who knows where they will be in a few months. Anyway, the link is an interesting quick read.

Yes, they would wait for the RA to attack first out of their fortified positions and the cut them up in open ground (maybe with the help of some of the new NATO AFVs) with stockpiles of artillery and missiles. They could just wait and lure the RA into kill zones and then go over to the offensive in the Fall. If this campaign season becomes a waiting game, then the UA could do nothing (which I doubt for PR reasons) or attack into the weakest points of the front and see what happens. When the UA goes over to the offense again, they have to assure success if for only (and I hate to say it) PR reasons.

Bryan often nails it: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3818412-ukraines-decision-centric-military-needs-more-than-armor-to-win/ Longer-range missiles including ATACMS, drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper, and F-16 fighter aircraft would not just help Ukraine fight like NATO would but also could help Kyiv’s defenders pioneer the next era in military operations. While the creaking Pentagon bureaucracy trundles toward all-domain command and control and a new warfighting concept, Ukrainian troops are putting them into action. The U.S. government should enable Ukraine’s innovation and then learn from it. Again, the Boyd cycle comes up in the form of increasing your options while eliminating the enemy's. But there is a temporal component to the cycle and it's key to identify when the time is right to strike where the enemy is weakest. So the total number and type of new NATO systems is not important in themselves, it's about combining them into all knowing synergistic packages that present Russia with unsolvable dilemmas everyday.

WSJ today: This will be the fourth-closest approach recorded, according to Dr. Farnocchia. He said there were two instances in 2020 and another in 2021. Asteroids are big rocks and harder to recognize than comets, which usually have spectacular tails. 2023 BU was first spotted by amateur astronomer Gennadiy Borisov, from his observatory in Nauchnyi, Crimea, on Jan. 21. NASA had to briefly consider the man was drunk and watching a Kh-22 go by before validating his observation.

That's always a consideration in general when fielding armies throughout history. When is to much technology to much for the task at hand? In the present situation, Ukraine is moving over to western systems. Other than tactical rifles, mortars and alike, the west does not have really simple systems. They are engineered for lethality and survivability which is the traditional approach when arming a force having inferior numbers. In WW2, they called it "bullets not bodies". Closing with the enemy is very deadly and the west wants that process to be almost a done deal before bayonets are fixed. So, I don't think the west has a lot of simple equipment to give to the UA. Longer range missiles and GPS shells fit that requirement. But most new AFVs are going to need re-training. We can table F-16s. One good thing is that training can accelerate as classes move through schools. They used to be called training outfits. Once Ukraine has those in place things will speed up.

Yes, tongue and cheek for sure. Piecing together my posts this past week or so, you would see we agree that the US and NATO could end this thing conventionally. We also agree that without CAS, new and used Ukrainian tanks can't reach their potential unless a new operational concept is invented on the fly. That part is interesting. Without CAS, this new NATO equipment might just amount to a trophy wife dressed to the nines for show - and watch you don't mess up her hair BTW. But seriously, perhaps the new stuff amounts to an issuance policy short term if the RA is foolish enough to leave their trenches. If the RA just stays put, we might see offensive UA ops almost as tests for something larger - maybe in the Fall. If the RA has any strength left, it lies in its dreadful mass of humanity sitting on a huge third rate road block. Attacking into that without guaranteed success would be ill advised. The battlefield needs to be shaped for that and it may come down to longer range missiles to kind of replace the lack of a/c that would normally go after RA LOC.

That's too slow. Just bring on the well trained USAF to carpet bomb the front lines. I am sure we can train up Ukrainians to push open the bomb bays. Scholz's face would be priceless when learning about this one as his gaggle of tanks creep toward the front.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3830293-ukraine-will-now-push-for-f-16-fighter-jets-government-adviser-says/ Alright already ... here have your NUKEs back too and call us in the morning. But remember two dixie cups and a string only go so far.

I tend to think this is what we will see in the short term at least. The UA probably presented NATO will a board brush plan on how the new stuff will be used in order to get the AFVs. Will they keep the new NATO equipment together and form new units or dole it out to existing formations? Given the lack of mobility caused by a damaged battlefield, the new armor might be best used if the RA breaks clear of no-man's land and then becomes nice targets to coral into kill zones by formations with good freedom of movement.

I will quickly throw out that no-man's land along key routes is heavily pockmarked with shell holes that might be limiting AFV mobility - especially heavy MBTs. These are already vulnerable on the modern battlefield moving at normal rates. But throw in all those shell holes, damp ground and only light stuff can move out of cover and survive without being sitting ducks. this will tend to make avenues of approach more predictable as well. If this observation is true, then using MBTs a mobile artillery makes sense. Let's not forget, traditional CAS for armored thrusts does not exist. Learning how to support armored assaults with drones and precision ground launches is work in progress.

Quick read: https://defense.info/featured-story/2023/01/germany-the-war-in-ukraine-and-its-future-role-in-europe/ “the geographical locus of Europe has shifted East as security has become a more urgent part of the European agenda and as the United States has re-engaged (however temporarily) in Europa with a military buildup the likes of which has not been seen since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Even Kissinger is calling for Ukrainian membership in NATO. That shift also reflects a growing European recognition of the need to counter not just Russian, but Chinese influence in Central Asia. the pivot Germany needs to make. “Germany´s military policy in Europe needs to focus less on France and more on the intermarium region from the Nordic countries, to the Balts, Poland, and the belt of states along the Black Sea including Ukraine – if Berlin wishes to retain its leadership role in Europe. So far it is failing to do so.” Well there is one longer term geopolitical view for you. Just when you thought it safe to pay most attention to China and sea lanes with nice and clean air/naval deterrence, Putin farts at the dinner table with a gross land war.

I mentioned this as one option since traditionally you would wait to develop that critical mass and then pick where best to strike and hold regained ground. That may not always be true when fighting in close terrain, but the tank country in Ukraine would seem to lend itself for the traditional approach. But again, outside considerations could come into play. For example, a moderate RA breakthrough might tempt the use of the new equipment in smallish packets to seal off the front. RA leadership is going to have to show a lot of though love with their junior front line troops who might begin to cry for NATOs mobile firepower as it's delivered. I think the last thing the UA wants is to have this hard won equipment picked off piecemeal. Not good militarily or for PR.

Boris Johnson in his own words: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11667727/BORIS-JOHNSON-sooner-help-Ukraine-victory-sooner-suffering-over.html The impassioned plea comes with a head-on dismissal of the escalation argument. Few at his level that I can recalled have been so blunt (see inside). And here is another piece of jerky for the mass media to chew on: And yes, I accept that when Putin eventually and inevitably loses, it will be difficult to explain it all to the Russian public. But he will find a way. He controls the organs of opinion. He still has very substantial support. It is not our job to worry about Putin, or where his career might go next, or to engage in pointless Kremlinology. Our job is to help Ukraine win – as fast as possible.

Maybe they would be. But the writer's point goes well beyond future clones that we know are in the wings. Conquest and glory at the expense of liberal societies is ingrained in Russia. Not the individual. But in the institutions and the means by which you can dream of a better future for your family. I believe the writer thinks those means will always be through corruption and organized criminal activities. Russia will remain a large nation with huge resources just waiting for thugs to grab for their own. If they can't carve out external empires, the crooks will just steal from each other and create their own kingdoms. All while having WMD and bad actors like Iran to keep sensible societies and international accountability at arms length. To truly change, Russia would require severe treatment almost in line with what Germany and Japan experienced post-war. But they did not have WMDs that now are driving western strategy related its own future well being.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/22/vladimir-putin-ukraine-west-russia-president More endgame yuck: Even if Ukraine chases every last Russian soldier from its land, Russia’s aggression will not end. Russia will continue to make claims to Ukraine’s territory, and will back them up with threats, intermittent missile launches and border skirmishes. There is no such thing as a decisive victory for the defender. A decisive victory implies the destruction of the attacker, lest it come back after a brief reprieve. Destroying Russia’s will or long-term capacity to take its land is something that, for Ukraine, is not an option. With an aggressor impervious to international or domestic pressure, tenuous peace, backed by a state-of-the-art anti-missile defence system and a world-class military on standby, may just be the best outcome Ukraine can hope to achieve. Ukraine knows this, even though its western supporters are still hoping for a good-faith negotiated settlement. What Ukraine needs is to prepare for the long haul, strengthen its relationships with additional potential allies, and further develop its own defence industry. The only way Ukraine can achieve lasting peace is by stockpiling the biggest guns it can find. Writer never really get into the inner circle thing.

Follow on to last night's earlier report: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-government-united-states-c9459e1bed9ad7358a59b541b3a5ae8c Talk about chutzpah: “Supplies of offensive weapons to the Kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” Volodin said. “If Washington and NATO supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.” Sense any fear or frustration?: Medvedev, a former Russian president, warned that “in case of a protracted conflict,” Russia could seek to form a military alliance with “the nations that are fed up with the Americans and a pack of their castrated dogs.”

Now we just have to convince armchair generals around the world the military value of the defensive in these situations. But there is something in human nature that hates watching innocent civilians slaughtered and just wants the whole mess to go away. The bull has to disregard the matador's cloak. If I know these things and losing patience, what about the vast majority who can't find Kiev on a map? Not a new problem across generations, but it's our problem now. -------------- WSJ Headline today : Ukraine War Lands Europe’s Leaders in a Battle of Wills Fear of receding U.S. support for Kyiv raises pressure in Europe for bolder action

Latest news on the MBT issue(s) - I think: https://my.xfinity.com/articles/news-general/20230123/EU--Russia-Ukraine-War-7789 Simple endgames are what grandmasters strive for. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/dont-fear-putins-demise Maybe those burning the midnight oil will have a bulb light up. A little too surgically clean; but why not consider the best but know its going to ne lot messier.

I don't see this about Germany per se. It's more about the proper way to supply a major war that was somewhat predictable. The arguments over MTBs being aired in public today should have been hashed out prior too, or just after, hostiles so as to present a unified message. I am all for public discourse, but this is war and we can give leadership much more privacy in the decision making process. In the end, this in-fighting will not matter. But the optics are bad and Putin likes that. A tiny gift to a thug who does not deserve one. Even without a formal NATO like structure in the Pacific, I believe the roles and responsibilities of like minded nations are already worked out to deter China and fight them if all else fails. But this is not a truly fair comparison since the US has a much stronger influence on the Pacific, the fighting would be dominated by air/naval operations and would not last too long.

Odd world we live in. NATO has the air power to end this war by the Superbowl and they are arguing over M1s vs Leopards. It's like watching someone heard cats as they roll around in the weeds. I get the WMD angle. But maybe it's time to start braising the frog if not boiling it. The lukewarm approach is putting everyone to sleep except the Ukrainian people.

All things being equal, think both sides would rather wait for the other to go over to the offensive and counterattack any gains. However, Russia is probably more motivated to attack than Ukraine because of internal reasons. The internal dynamics on both sides are different since Ukraine's civilians are dying and infrastructure is just working enough. But normal life is near impossible. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of Russian civilians. If merely surviving against NATO is enough to quell the warmongers, then Russia can stay put. Probably, their best option given the state of their ground forces. So the question becomes which side can't live with the status quo - if not now, later on. The dynamics of this are fascinating. Two gun slingers waiting to see who draws first. But the clock is running faster for Russia and that's to their disadvantage. Yet, many are thinking the newer NATO stuff is being readied for offensive action against a defensive minded RA. https://warriormaven.com/russia-ukraine/surface-to-air-missiles-rockets-ukraine-aid-package The second half argues for more traditional mass simply because of the current correlation of forces. But the UA will still have to innovate tactically to keep losses down. Can you perform laser surgery with a M1 tank formation? Or is it all about mass and the momentum that they bring to combat?